The Gaia Theory was invented by the British James Lovelock in the 20th century, it has nothing to do with the Greeks apart from the borrowed name.
unless you count gaia being sentiant earth goddess in greek mythology. then it kinda helps >.>.
Yeah but Gaia the Greek deity is a Earth goddess like any other Earth goddess in the world, like Cybele, Ninursag, Nerthus, etc. Aura and I were talking about the Gaia Theory, which claims the Earth is a true living being (not a "goddess") and is supposed to be a scientific theory.
And yet, Lovelock still called it 'Gaia' for a reason. Not 'Mother Earth' theory, but 'Gaia' theory. Plainly even he saw some connection with the Greek theogony. As a matter of fact, that connection is a far stronger one than Freud's infamous 'Oedipus' complex, which is in my opinion one of the silliest and flawed uses of Greek allusion.* Lovelock's theory, from what I can recall (correct me if I'm wrong) conceive of the Earth as a self-sustaining entity that keeps harmony and euqilibrium amongst its systems, rather like a living being. Now, the Gaia of Hesiod is not much unlike this. She is a creator and sustainer of her own system, and works as an instigator to restore the balance when it is offset. When Ouranos, both her child and lover, oppresses her, and keeps her hundred-handed children from being born (the famed Hekatonkhaires who later aid the Olympians), she enlists the aid of the young Titan Kronos, another of her sons. This son castrates his father Ouranos, ending his tyranny. However, Kronos, too, proves tyrant, and so a child of Kronos, Zeus by name, is aided by Gaia to overthrow the new oppressor. War is waged between the so-called Olympians who take their stand on Olympos, against the ruling party, the Titans. I think we all know the outcome of that one. Once again, partially by the goading of Gaia, order in her world-system is restored. And she IS essentially the universe as is important to Greek myth. The other primeaval entities have little scope for territory. Chaos is there, somewhere, but does little but bring such dark divinities as Night into being. Eros is everywhere, but is more the force of attraction, rather than a physical prescence. Tartaros, though a place, rarely figures importantly, being more a place of punishment for the wicked and the Titans (ie. the Greek hell), but visisted almost never, even by the gods. Thus Gaia is of primary importance to the Greek theological and world system (also, she is the progenator of most later gods, including the famous Olympians.) I do not think it far off, therefore, to speak of the Gaia theory, and the Gaia of Greek myth, in the same breath. They are not identical - one being used merely as an allusive form for a scientific theory. But at the least it is better than some famous theories that do similar things, such as Freud's, as I have said. One can far more closely say that Gaia follows the Gaia theory, than Oedipus having an Oedipus complex. Gaia is a bit like in the theory; Oedipus does not have that complex.
*Freud, I believe, shows a total disregard for the mechanisms behind the Theban tragedy. Freud's theories consider subconscious desires in human psychology - mark that, desires! The tragedy in the Kadmeian house of Thebes to which Oedipus belonged to, culminating first in the infamous patricide and mother-marrying, but later in a devastating war, has nothing to do with illicit or deep-seated passions. Rather, the impetus was sins of the father (Laius), and simply the wish of the gods. Oedipus was powerless to stand against this - remember that his very arrival in Thebes is only because he is fleeing Corinth, where he believes his parents live, in order that the Dephic oracle might be evaded. He is to his deepest core abhorred at what he might do to his parents, and remains so even after he ascends to the kingship of Thebes. The second strike against Freud is that Oedipus is, indeed, found guiltless of his actions. Though he blames himself, he comes to in time blame the gods, who vindicate him by apotheosising the aged exile. He is shown as a monster for what he did, but never is there any hint that it was consciously or subconsciously intentional. In fact, the only case where this might be is that of Phaedra and Hippolitos, but that is a step-mother being driven in passion for a step-son... but that also is god-contrived.
